Farmers of Fashion A Farmer's Response to a Global Wardrobe Crisis - Nuffield Farming Scholarships
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Farmers of Fashion A Farmer’s Response to a Global Wardrobe Crisis A report for By Tamara Uebergang 2019 Nuffield Scholar May 2021 Nuffield Australia Project No 1906 Supported by:
© 2021 Nuffield Australia.
All rights reserved.
This publication has been prepared in good faith on the basis of information available at the date of publication
without any independent verification. Nuffield Australia does not guarantee or warrant the accuracy, reliability,
completeness of currency of the information in this publication nor its usefulness in achieving any purpose.
Readers are responsible for assessing the relevance and accuracy of the content of this publication. Nuffield
Australia will not be liable for any loss, damage, cost or expense incurred or arising by reason of any person using
or relying on the information in this publication.
Products may be identified by proprietary or trade names to help readers identify particular types of products
but this is not, and is not intended to be, an endorsement or recommendation of any product or manufacturer
referred to. Other products may perform as well or better than those specifically referred to.
This publication is copyright. However, Nuffield Australia encourages wide dissemination of its research,
providing the organisation is clearly acknowledged. For any enquiries concerning reproduction or
acknowledgement contact the Publications Manager on ph: 0402 453 299.
Scholar Contact Details
Tamara Uebergang
Berwyndale Pastoral
“Berwyndale” 900 Freemans Road, Miles Q 4415
Phone: 0439750447
Email: tamarauebergang@outlook.com
In submitting this report, the Scholar has agreed to Nuffield Australia publishing this material in its edited form.
NUFFIELD AUSTRALIA Contact Details
Nuffield Australia
Phone: 0402 453 299
Email: enquiries@nuffield.com.au
Address: PO Box 495, Kyogle, NSW 2474
2
Executive Summary
Fashion and textiles are a global juggernaut of industry and influence. The cotton supply chain
is simultaneously convoluted and disjointed, but dynamic; fast and ‘just-in-time’. Hence, it is
difficult for farmers to connect directly to connect with consumers. This supply chain is ripe
for disruption.
As all are sustainable by all current metrics, Australian cotton is well placed to participate in
future fashion markets, including the circular economy, carbon neutral products and ‘business
for good’. There is an opportunity to garner additional value in a sustainability and
provenance proposition.
Australia is rich in infrastructure and knowledge. This would easily facilitate the adoption of
block-chain technology. This approach would provide full traceability and transparency to the
farm gate, cost being the only inhibitor. Modern slavery is a hot-button issue in fashion, but
the Australian cotton can humbly, and confidently, invite scrutiny into workplaces. Hence, the
industry is well poised to align with ‘brands with purpose’. There are already several certifying
schemes for textiles, some are aimed at brand protection while some signify luxury niches.
‘Australian cotton’ is not an existing identity fibre, owing to inconsistent supply and the
unique qualities the lint can bring when blended with lower qualities into yarn. Australian
cotton’s ultimate competitor is synthetics, though the dangers of microplastics washing into
the natural environment are not widely known. A growing awareness of this is a great
opportunity for cotton.
The objectives of this study were to understand the customer and how they are influenced,
explore the cotton value chain, identify trends and disruptions in the textile market and seek
technology that clarifies traceability and transparency.
Traditionally, an Australian cotton grower’s customer is a spinning mill buying raw lint as a
bulk commodity. The advent of a discerning customer and technology to trace raw materials
to the source is changing this. Being that Australian cotton has already done the heavy lifting
regarding water, pesticide and energy use, the industry is well placed to align with a conscious
customer.
3
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 3
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................... 4
Table of Figures .............................................................................................................. 5
Foreword ....................................................................................................................... 6
Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................... 8
Abbreviations ................................................................................................................. 9
Objectives .....................................................................................................................10
Chapter 1: Introduction .................................................................................................11
1.1 Global context ................................................................................................................ 11
1.2 Production ...................................................................................................................... 12
1.3 Marketing ....................................................................................................................... 13
1.4 Spinning and milling ....................................................................................................... 14
Case Study: English Fine Cottons ...................................................................................... 15
Chapter 2: Who is the customer and what do they care about? ......................................16
2.1 Long supply chain ........................................................................................................... 16
2.2 Cotton and market share ............................................................................................... 16
2.2.1 Active wear .............................................................................................................. 17
2.2.2 Health, wellness and sustainability trends .............................................................. 18
2.2.3 Fast fashion .............................................................................................................. 19
2.2.4 Textile waste ............................................................................................................ 19
2.3 The rise of slow fashion and conscious consumers ....................................................... 20
2.3.1 Fashion and the United Nations .............................................................................. 21
2.3.2. Environment and microplastics .............................................................................. 22
Chapter 3: Defining Sustainability ..................................................................................25
3.1 Certifications and Identity cotton .................................................................................. 25
3.1.1 myBMP, Australia’s sustainability proposition ........................................................ 25
3.1.2 Organic cotton ......................................................................................................... 26
3.1.3 Better Cotton Initiative (BCI) ................................................................................... 28
3.1.4 Upland vs Egyptian long staple................................................................................ 30
3.1.5 Carbon neutral ......................................................................................................... 30
3.1.6 Environmental profit and loss ................................................................................. 31
3.1.7 Biodiversity .............................................................................................................. 32
3.2 Minimising GHG emissions on farms ............................................................................. 33
3.3 Circularity and opportunities ......................................................................................... 33
Chapter 4: Transparency and Traceability ......................................................................36
4.1 Traceability ..................................................................................................................... 37
4.1.1 Oritain ...................................................................................................................... 37
4.1.2 FibreTrace ................................................................................................................ 37
Chapter 5: More Than Clothes: BCorps ...........................................................................39
Case Study: Outland Denim .............................................................................................. 39
Conclusion.....................................................................................................................41
Recommendations ........................................................................................................42
4
References ....................................................................................................................44
Plain English Compendium Summary .............................................................................49
Table of Figures
Figure 1: A journey of unexpected twists and turns, including a campaign with Country Road.
Author (left) pictured with 2013 Scholar and Nuffield CEO Jodie Redcliffe .............................. 7
Figure 2: Leading cotton producing countries worldwide 2018-19. Source: Statista, 2021 ... 13
Figure 3: Textile Supply Chain. Source: Payne, A. (2019) ........................................................ 16
Figure 4: Global fibre consumption trend Source: PCI Analysis, 2019 .................................... 18
Figure 5: Sustainable Development Goals. Source: United Nations ....................................... 21
Figure 6: Sources of microplastics in the world’s oceans Source: Statista, 2021 .................... 23
Figure 7: Comparison of the Global Organic Textile Standard and Organic Content Standard
certification standards. Source: Textile Exchange, 2020 ......................................................... 26
Figure 8: Cycle of poverty for women cotton farmers in India. Source: Textile Exchange 2020
.................................................................................................................................................. 27
Figure 9: Better Cotton Initiative Summary Source: BCI website 2020 ................................... 28
Figure 10: Supply of certified BCI cotton forecast to outstrip demand making attracting price
premiums difficult. Source: BCI, 2017 ..................................................................................... 29
Figure 11: EP&L metrics as according to Kering. Source: Kering, 2020 ................................... 32
Figure 12: Make Fashion Circular. Source: Ellen MacArthur Foundation ............................... 34
Figure 13: Everlane Transparent Pricing. Source: Everlane ..................................................... 36
Figure 14: Nobody Denim Article. Source: Danielle Statham 2021 ......................................... 38
Figure 15: Nobody Denim Article. Source: Danielle Statham, 2021 ........................................ 38
5
Foreword
Sustainable and sustainability were two words I purposefully excluded from my Nuffield
Scholarship application. Marketing and ‘Greenwash’ has cheapened the concept of
sustainability, one of the pillars of Australian agriculture. In our farming system, sustainability
represents a ‘baseline’ or survival, not luxury or exclusivity. This is where I have found the
deepest chasm between the producer (Australian cotton growers) and the customer. Farmers
lament a growing urban/rural divide and misguided consumers, however, as bulk commodity
producers, we find ourselves powerless to engage with the masses. Activists and industry
campaigners are both shouting into echo chambers, and wondering how we can find common
ground with the final purchaser.
At the Nuffield Contemporary Scholars Conference, I was challenged to ‘connect to the
customer’. Further than just sharing our journey on social media and reinforcing unconscious
bias, I have taken a deep-dive into ‘sustainable fashion’. I didn’t expect to be chatting with
fashion designers and influencers; furthermore, my ‘farmer’ wardrobe was certainly not
equipped to deal with this! It is a fascinating rabbit hole, punctuated with past atrocities and
present practices that will confront generations to come.
My family have been farmers for generations, and recognise a deep privilege in growing food
and fibre. We take our role as stewards of the environment very seriously. I was horrified to
learn of the waste, pollution, human exploitation and innumerable perils of the fashion
industry.
As a custodian and legacy builder, the realisation that we are at the very beginning of this
supply chain begs four serious questions:
• Organic production is the obvious path to an end user who shares our values.
Unfortunately, in our context this production system is not the best use of limited
water resources.
• One of our primary goals is to increase organic carbon in the soil, inherently, we aim
to be ‘carbon positive’. Circular farming though the composting of local waste
(manure) and adoption of renewable energy mitigate our carbon footprint. How can
we enhance the commercial viability of environmental improvement?
6
• I would love to support products with heart. I would rather not continue to feed the
fast fashion beast. Consumerism has potential to enhance communities and change
lives through skills. How can I contribute to supply chains that align with personal
values?
• What technologies are available to disrupt supply chains and connect with customers?
Figure 1: A journey of unexpected twists and turns, including a campaign with Country
Road. Author (left) pictured with 2013 Scholar and Nuffield CEO Jodie Redcliffe
7
Acknowledgments
I am ever grateful for the people in my life who encourage, challenge and inspire me.
Particularly my parents, who have not only kept the ship sailing at our family farm and home,
but given me the freedom and courage to immerse myself in this somewhat selfish
experience.
The Nuffield network, both in Australia and abroad, have been wonderful in practical and
educational supports. Particular thanks to 2014 Scholar Nigel Corish for solid mentoring.
To the innumerable people who have kindly introduced me to interesting and motivated
companies; the many who have freely shared your contacts and enabled me to conduct this
research, thank you.
The Charles and Sylvia Viertel Foundation primarily supports medical research, particularly in
areas of illnesses related to blindness and ageing. In light of this, I am deeply humbled that
they have invested in this programme, agriculture and myself.
8
Abbreviations
BCI Better Cotton Initiative
CA Cotton Australia
EFC English Fine Cottons
EMF Ellen Macarthur Foundation
GHG Greenhouse gas emissions
MMF Man-made fibre
myBMP my Best Management Practice
NGO Non-government organisation
QUT Queensland University of Technology
RA Regenerative agriculture
rPET recycled polyethylene terephthalate
UK United Kingdom
USA United States of America
9
Objectives
• Understand who our customer is, and who influences them
• Explore supply chain
• Identify trends and disruptions in textile market
• Connect fashion demands to agriculture
• Define circular fashion and the role of textile waste management
• Clarify transparency and traceability technology
10Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Global context
Clothes provide comfort, protection and an avenue of self-expression. Indeed, nearly all
people, all the time, encounter textiles. Rituals of daily life are hallmarked by drapery, waking
up in sheets, bathing with towelling and dressing for functionality and decoration. Homes are
mostly a collection of fabrics; curtains adorning a window, cushions on the seats of chairs, or
carpets beneath feet. Cotton has been discovered at ancient tombs dating back to 614 AD,
and today maintains a place as a commodity of global significance (St Clair, 2018).
Man-made, or natural, textiles are all part of the juggernaut that are materials. Presently,
textile production generates USD 1.3 trillion dollars and employs 300 million people; making
it one of the most significant pillars of the world economy (St Clair, 2018). Approximately 25
million tonnes of cotton are produced every year, and are used to make 45% of all clothes,
household goods and other consumer products (Cotton Australia, 2020).
According to the United Nations, climate change is the “defining issue of our time and we are
at a defining moment”. Without drastic action today, adapting to these impacts in the future
will be more difficult and costly (UN, 2019). The apparel sector is currently responsible for
10% of carbon emissions. Unless action is taken, this is predicted to increase to 25% by 2025
(UNFCC, 2018). As more influencers and trend leaders acknowledge the climate crisis, the
apparel industry is experiencing a moment of self-reflection, inducing its own deep disruption.
Agriculture is not known to pursue fickle trends; sustainability has long been considered a
‘baseline’ in agriculture. Representing an opportunity to connect with the final customer,
McKinsey/Business of Fashion has identified sustainability as one of the top five trends
affecting fashion today (Business of Fashion, 2019).
The population is being called to reduce consumption, upcycle, recycle, consider end of life
and know supply chains (Payne, 2019). As a majority fibre, cotton, particularly, has been in
the spotlight for its environmental and social impact. Major issues such as Xian Jang prison
camps, draining of the Aral Sea in Uzbekistan, farmer suicides in India and local Murray Darling
Basin issues seem to drown out the positive attributes of a compostable, renewable product
11that has the potential to enhance communities and build wealth in some of the most marginal
areas on the earth (EJF 2012).
Growers of a raw product feeding a complex value chain that is ripe for disruption are also at
a precipice. Is it possible to future proof the demand for cotton? In a world that is seeking
new ‘greener’ products and embracing recycling, how do virgin fibres remain relevant? What
is the point of difference and value proposition? There are certifications and endorsements
abound, but how can farmers influence their regulatory burden? Ultimately, is it possible, or
indeed moral, to generate a fiscal return for best practice?
In today’s political and social arena, growers must connect with consumer to maintain not
only market share, but social licence to operate.
1.2 Production
In an average year, the cotton industry in Australia produces enough fibre to clothe 500
million people. Over 1,500 farms cotton production contributes two billion dollars of export
earnings annually. Approximately 90% of Australian cotton farms are family owned and run.
Thanks to advances in biotechnology and precision irrigation, Australian growers are the
world’s most water efficient (Cotton Australia, 2020). Consistently high yields, quality
(particularly colour), traceability and environmental standards have bolstered the global
reputation of the industry (ACSA, 2020).
The cotton plant requires a warm summer, minimal frost and 500-700mm per hectare of
water during the growing season, hence climatic conditions dictate the major production
areas across the globe. Cotton production takes up 2.5% of the world’s arable land, and
accounts for nearly 40% of global textile production, making it the second most used fibre
after polyester. More than 90% of cotton farmers live in developing countries (Figure 2),
where cotton employs 7% of the total labour force (EJF, 2019).
12Figure 2: Leading cotton producing countries worldwide 2018-19. Source: Statista, 2021
1.3 Marketing
Presently, most Australian growers sell 227kg bales of raw lint to merchants. Usually, these
global trading houses have developed several different grower contracts, designed to
alleviate some risks for growers. A merchant can then engage in various strategies to manage
risk on-behalf of a grower. The worth of a cotton crop is determined by pricing elements
including currency rates, basis levels and futures. These are driven by financial markets and
overseas mills (ACSA, 2020). Following ginning, lint is classed according to quality metrics,
then premiums or discounts are applied for variations from ‘base grade’. It is usually at this
point the grower totally loses contact with the product.
Farming is a multifaceted business, often demanding a broad skill set. Hence, this system
appeals to farmers whose expertise is not in commodity trading, hedging or the complexities
of cotton supply chain. Historically, growers are focused on increasing profitability through
yield and input efficiency rather than uncontrollable market forces.
13Despite being a small global producer – and owing to the fact Australia have no onshore
processing facilities – it has a unique position influencing global supplies. Australia is between
the world’s third to sixth largest exporter of raw lint; seasonally dependant (EJF, 2020).
Traditional marketing has effectively provided farmers with minimal counter party risk and an
access to a global market. However, this system does not take advantage of opportunities
presented by traceability platforms, the value of sustainability or the customer’s burgeoning
interest in provenance.
1.4 Spinning and milling
Historically, import quotas and protectionism restricted the global trade of textiles and
apparel. When the World Trade Organization eliminated restrictions, retailers and apparel
companies expanded their supply chains to low-cost producers. Subsequently, manufacturers
and retailers have ‘chased the needle’ around the globe, seeking the lowest cost of
production.
The spinning industry and production of yarn is often referred to as the ‘black box’ of the
supply chain (Clack, pers. comm., 2020). To produce a cost-effective product, yarn is nearly
always a blend of several origins of fibre, sometimes including synthetic yarns. It is at this
point that transparency and provenance is compromised. Essentially, mills want cheap lint.
Hence, fibre from unknown sources can enter the supply chain as higher quality bales are ‘cut’
or blended to lift the value of poorer quality lint.
Margins are tight at every step of the supply chain and in their defence, blending varying
qualities is a competitive necessity to a fabric mills financial viability (Andy Ogden, pers.
comm., 2020). Some spinning mills “only care about price”. In this instance, it could be argued
that they are out of step with the rest of the supply chain. As producers of lint and retailers
are pushing from both directions to improve transparency in the middle of the chain, scrutiny
will intensify.
Australian cotton is some of the most expensive in the world. Mills invest in Australian bales
to minimise breakages and stoppages, improve uniformity of yarn and increase throughput.
Although desirable, the drawback of Australian cotton is a lack of consistent supply. Erratic
climate and water availability do not facilitate reliability. Cotton growers in Australia are not
14restricted to a monoculture. Most growing regions support several crops; hence, farmers will
swap away from cotton if another crop fits their farming system; further unsettling supply.
In a stroke of irony, it is interesting that the start of the modern cotton industry was
encouraged by a federal government subsidy to reduce costs of imports for local spinning
mills. Owing to a high cost of labour and electricity, Australia has virtually no cotton spinning;
nearly 100% of today’s production is exported to Asia (Cotton Australia, 2021).
Case Study: English Fine Cottons
English Fine Cottons (EFC) is one spinner that recognises a gap in the market and is producing
a single origin yarn. EFC refuses to buy cotton from farmers they do not know and refuses to
be bent on quality. Their customers include Burberry, capitalising on British nostalgia and local
manufacturing as value proposition. They have steered away from certification programs,
instead keeping their supply chain short and honour based. Limitations include a lack of
scalability and accessibility.
The parent company, Culimeta Saveguard, traditionally manufactured textiles for the
automotive industry, particularly sound deadening sleeves for diesel motors on luxury
vehicles. They recognise imminent disruption owing the adoption of electronic vehicles.
15Chapter 2: Who is the customer and what
do they care about?
2.1 Long supply chain
Ultimately, the customers are citizens purchasing clothes, furniture and all manner of textiles.
However, it is worth remembering that this has very little bearing on the price of lint at the
farm gate. The author has observed Australian farmers focus on Australian customers and
local perceptions. Although this does nothing to influence fiscal return, it does ensure market
access and a social licence to operate.
Fashion Revolution (2020) estimate that a t-shirt will pass through 88 sets of hands before it
reaches a customer. This lengthy value chain (Figure 3) disconnects sustainable producers
from customers who share their values; likewise, customers who may be willing to invest in
practices they support or virtue signalling.
Figure 3: Textile Supply Chain. Source: Payne, A. (2019)
2.2 Cotton and market share
Cotton has been struggling to maintain market share since the advent of man-made fibre
(MMF). A 1960s wardrobe was comprised of 68% cotton, whereas projections for 2022 are
27% of fibre demand. In 2011 global prices reached a historical peak; this, coinciding with a
trend towards “athleisure” or active wear; was deeply damaging to cottons market share.
Synthetics simply were functional, fashionable, and cheaper (St. Clair, 2019). Being subject to
16weather, cotton can fluctuate in quality and availability; synthetics; conversely, can be reliably
produced at consistently low prices.
Many consumers find out about cotton via online sources. Like many ‘facts’ published on open
forums, their authors have self-serving bias. Whether published by companies, non-
government organisations (NGOs) or environmentalists, the information regarding cotton is
overwhelmingly negative and inaccurate (Antoshak, 2020). Furthermore, traditional methods
of news reporting and information sharing have drastically changed with the advent of social
media. Reinforced biases of the eco-conscious customer amplify or indeed create issues
around a certain product. It appears that conventional cotton is a casualty of unqualified and
uneducated opinion.
Unfortunately, this criticism is not entirely baseless. Indeed, cotton has close historical ties to
slavery and the American civil war. There is also no escaping that the production of cellulose
based fibres requires the application of chemicals and fertilisers, nor that the land that could
otherwise be used to grow food. Despite accounting for 2.5% of agricultural land globally,
cotton production uses as much as 16% of all pesticides used and 4% of nitrogen and
phosphorus fertilisers (Textile Exchange, 2018). Overuse of these inputs leads to soil
degradation and water pollution.
Overall place of clothing in the consumer budget must now compete with electronics and
travel, relegating expensive ‘natural’ fibres to a luxury mind-set. For cotton, the challenge is
how to tell a compelling story, while remaining price competitive. As seen in 2011, lint prices
above 80c/lb can have drastic effect on overall demand for cotton; with spinners readily
swapping to synthetics (Antoshak, 2020).
2.2.1 Active wear
‘Ath-leisure’ and active wear has been a phenomena. The ‘uniform’ of the 80s and 90s was
denim jeans and a cotton t-shirt, this has largely been replaced with various forms of
sportswear comprised of MMF for stretch, durability and ease of product care.
Wide acceptance of MMF in end use categories like sportswear, leisurewear, women dresses,
home textile, automotive, carpets and other industrial sectors has increased the market
demand of MMF. As a result, polyester is expected to dominate textile markets in almost all
17end use categories while cotton will slowly lose its share; from 31% in 2015 to 28% in 2025,
while during the same period, polyester will grow from 51% to 55%, implying that by 2025
global consumption of polyester will be almost double than that of the cotton fibre (Figure 4)
(PCI Analysis, 2019). It is unknown whether post-2025, a growing awareness around the
environmental perils of micro-plastics, and the end-of-life problems with polyester will
reverse the direction of this graph.
Figure 4: Global fibre consumption trend Source: PCI Analysis, 2019
2.2.2 Health, wellness and sustainability trends
Fashion is by its very definition, fickle, and one such trend is sustainability. Although this will
mean different things to different people, the consensus is a general need to ‘do better’.
Some fast fashion culprits are now exploiting ‘sustainability’ as a trend. For example, in 2020
Accessorize is advertising a “Vegan” collection; entirely free of animal products, but
completely non-compostable; made at an undisclosed factory. The full impact of this product
is potentially far more damaging to the environment, but an informed consumer will feel
absolved of their environmental guilt. Known as ‘Greenwash’, occasionally companies making
these claims are called to account and are often found wanting. Genuine sustainability
initiatives in fast fashion retailers are commendable. However, the core of the issue is a
business model reliant on overconsumption of under-valued goods.
18Changes in consumer lifestyle like increasing emphasis on fitness, rising brand consciousness,
fast changing fashion trends, increasing women participation in the workforce and hygiene
consciousness are driving the trends in the end products. The impact of such trends is passed
along the textile value chain which in turn has resulted in high demand of the fibres that can
fulfil these requirements at affordable price. In this context polyester is the most cost
effective and adaptable fibre. As a result, polyester is expected to dominate the global textiles
in foreseeable future in almost all end use categories while cotton will slowly lose its share.
2.2.3 Fast fashion
Fashion has long been an indicator of wealth or status. Enabled by mass production and briefly
praised for its ‘democratization of fashion’; “Fast fashion” is the practice of single use, low
value items appealing to a flippant consumer. As celebrities have embraced ‘disposable’
clothing, they have unwittingly endorsed retailers such as H & M, Zara, TopShop, Boohoo and
Primark; who aim to make cat-walk or celebrity styles available to ordinary consumers cheaply
and quickly. The bargain hunter (or hunted); may have noticed an article of clothing on social
media in the morning and can have it delivered by Amazon in the afternoon. Tragically, these
garments may only be worn once; or not at all. Often goods are sold so close to the cost of
production, the business is relying on sheer volume of sales. This marketing strategy is
contributing to textile demand. However, it is creating a monstrous amount of textile waste,
pollution and social degradation.
2.2.4 Textile waste
Ideally, and simplistically, textile waste would be collected, sorted, composted, and re-made
into garments and ultimately returned to the soils that produced the raw materials.
Technology is available to recover fibres and recondition into new materials, though is
constrained by a lack of recycling facilities and financial incentive; and will not succeed
without government intervention. Locally, there is a thriving second-hand / thrift store trade,
laying a solid foundation in the steps towards a circular economy.
The United Kingdom (UK) and Europe are addressing textile waste with recycling incentives
and tariffs on garments unsold that are destined to landfill. This radical approach is expected
to generate £35 million which will be re-invested in salvaging or reprocessing. Locally,
legislation against single use plastic bags was introduced in Queensland in 2018. Although this
19is a blunt instrument; regulation has reduced wasteful choices of consumers. As society
continues to shamelessly discard unwanted clothing, perhaps a signal from government
would curb these habits? After conducting feasibility studies in Goondiwindi, Coreo Circular
Economy Explorers (2019) believe there is great potential in recycling cotton trash (produced
at ginning) and also discarded clothing in Australia’s south-east. Effective textile recycling is
unlikely to curb global demand for raw lint. Due to its biodegradability, virgin fibres will always
be required to strengthen yarns.
2.3 The rise of slow fashion and conscious consumers
In 2013, the collapse of Rana Plaza in Bangladesh brought the true impact of fast fashion to
contemporary consciousness. The unsafe factory housed approximately 2,000 employees
making clothes for iconic western brands such as Zara and Primark, when it dramatically
collapsed, killing 1,134 factory workers (Fashion Revolution, 2020) Fashion Revolution argue
that the Rana Plaza tragedy was the “direct result of the opaque, complex and speedy way in
which the industry functions today” (UK Parliament, 2019). This disaster shocked the collective
conscience of consumers and decision makers, accelerating efforts to uphold the rights of
workers throughout the apparel industry. Customers began demanding more information
around sourcing, supply chains origins of their ‘cheap’ fast fashion fix. Historically, import
quotas and protectionism restricted the global trade of textiles and apparel. When the World
Trade Organization eliminated restrictions, retailers and apparel companies expanded supply
chains to inferior producers. Subsequently, manufacturers and retailers have ‘chased the
needle’, seeking the lowest cost of production. Unintended consequences include
exploitation of women and children as factory or field workers.
Baptist World Aid (2020) responded to the Rana Plaza disaster by publishing an Ethical Fashion
Report. This publication assesses each company’s ethical sourcing system according to 44
specific criteria, located at three critical stages of the supply chain: raw materials, inputs
production and final stage manufacturing. Their annual report is now an influential ‘naughty
and nice’ list, guiding purchasing decisions for millions of consumers.
Mentioned specifically in the “Fixing Fashion: Clothing Consumption and Sustainability”
report from the Environmental Audit Committee in UK Parliament (2018); Modern slavery is
cited as one of the major issues in the fashion supply chain. “It is a widely accepted fact that
20the nubile fingers of children are preferred in the organic cotton fields of India” (Press, C.,
pers. comm., 2018).
Many companies now conduct self-imposed supply chain audits and addressed problematic
business partners. If brands are not actively distancing themselves from certain production
regions or practices, they are condemned as complicit.
2.3.1 Fashion and the United Nations
Australian producers have a unique opportunity and willingness to collaborate, especially in
environmental and social arenas. Cotton Australia has acknowledged there are many
synergies between Australian grown fibre and the United Nations Sustainable Development
Goals (Figure 5) (Cotton Australia, 2019).
Figure 5: Sustainable Development Goals. Source: United Nations
However, Goal 12: Responsible Consumption and Production, is a major challenge for fashion
retailers. Many business models rely on rampant consumerism and exploiting a human desire
to follow trends. Even businesses with the most genuine commitment to sustainability and
ethics require economies of scale and stock turn over. There is a complicated calculation when
considering the economic development opportunities industrialisation brings to a nation. It is
possible to achieve this balance.
21The fashion industry is responsible for “around 10% of all global greenhouse gas emissions
due to its long supply chains and energy intensive production,” according to the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. These very statistics were quoted by Alice
Payne, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), when discussing the future of fashion.
Design colleges are leading the charge in educating the next generation of influencers to
lessen their climatic impact.
2.3.2. Environment and microplastics
Microplastics are less than 5mm and their significance globally is impossible to measure
accurately. There is a growing amount of concern that the world’s oceans are harbouring
thousands of tonnes of virtually invisible plastics. Some particles are so small, they are likely
to enter the food chain and have been found to cross the blood-brain barrier in fish (CSIRO,
2019).
Dr Mitchell from CSIRO highlights this a positive point of difference for cotton. “Cotton is a
natural, renewable fibre unlike synthetics which are made with petrochemicals. Every time
you wash synthetics like polyester and nylon, thousands of tiny microfibers of material are
pulled free and enter our waterways. These are not degradable and can build up in the food
chain” (Figure 6).
There is certainly a place for synthetic materials, especially in the case of materials requiring
constant and vigorous use. A small percentage of polyester, spandex or nylon, for example,
can provide essential performance properties, or a chair on public transport can be utilised
thousands of times over; while maintaining a fresh and tidy appearance. Regrettably, these
fabrics are often derived from finite, petroleum-based sources.
22Figure 6: Sources of microplastics in the world’s oceans Source: Statista, 2021
If the average consumer in the developed world was cognisant of the perils of polyester, they
would likely preference natural fibres for their ability to be recycled and lower carbon
footprint. Greater consumer awareness of this, supported by price signals implemented by
government, is the only way to progress to a truly circular and sustainable fashion industry.
In poorer nations, price is will remain the overriding factor in textile choice.
Cotton Seed Distributers and CSIRO have a 30-year partnership that has seen Australian
cotton reduce pesticide use by 85% and herbicides by 60%. The team are working on a cotton
that mimics the properties of synthetics, but maintains biodegradability (CSIRO, 2018). Nylon
and polyester is cheap, fast, will stretch, and doesn’t need ironing. However, being derived
from non-renewable petrochemicals is a major environmental drawback. Coupled with the
issues of microplastics, there is an environmental imperative to bring these new fibres to
market. This could well become a ‘silver bullet’, but to be truly sustainable, it is vital to
overcome the existing supply chain issues of blending and substitution, which are
compounded by the lack of onshore processing resources.
23In the time it takes to develop ‘stretching cotton’, the industry needs to alert the consumer
to the perils of synthetic fibres. At the risk of being negative and simply throwing rocks at
other materials; a guerrilla campaign of advertising may contribute to maintaining market
share. Secondly, broader engagement with large buyers of textiles (such as government)
could stem the consumption of synthetics. If each school mandated cotton only uniforms or
hospital purchased cotton-only sheets, that could solve a double-sided problem.
24Chapter 3: Defining Sustainability
3.1 Certifications and Identity cotton
As awareness around ‘sustainability’ grows, brands are turning to any source they can find.
Through this information vacuum various players have emerged, many who have vested
interests. There are 22 different programs listed on the preferred cotton matrix compiled by
the Textile Exchange (2020). Textile Exchange is an influential membership platform ‘helping
to navigate the complicated maze of textile industry’. They display an unapologetic bias
towards organic production and offer certifications of “responsible” down, leather, mohair,
wool and bio-synthetics.
As well as creating confusion, customers are often unaware that certifications may only
highlight one part of the supply chain. For example, organic production may also include
children as part of a labour force, or require chemical dyes or softeners on the final product
and finishes. Just because there is ‘one feature’, such as organically grown does not equate
to a wholly ‘more sustainable’ product.
3.1.1 myBMP, Australia’s sustainability proposition
It is not just government that holds industry accountable. Increasingly, societal pressures
drive reform. Inaction can result in an extreme government response that not only increases
regulation, but also impacts trade and market opportunities. Examples include the proposed
EU palm oil ban in 2018 or the ban of the live cattle trade in 2011.
Hence, the Australian industry is regulated by laws and is self-governing through a world
standard Best Management Programme, known as myBMP. The BMP was developed in the
1990s in response to community concerns regarding pesticide use in cotton fields. Initially a
document to defend social licence, it has now morphed into a standard ‘championing
environmental standards’, technology adoption and social contribution. It is acknowledged as
reciprocal to other sustainability standards such as CottonLEADS and the Better Cotton
Initiative (BCI). Anecdotally, certified BCI bales attract a premium between AUD $2 and
$5/bale. Rabobank has found that attracting a price premium is the leading driver to
participate in voluntary sustainability standards (Twomey, 2018).
253.1.2 Organic cotton
Average consumers perceive organic as better for the environment and health. Organically
grown cotton is highly palatable to a brand and consumer. Unfortunately, it is prone to fraud
and substitution. Nineteen countries currently produce organic cotton, with 92% grown in the
following countries: India (67%), China (12%), Turkey (6%), Kyrgyzstan (5%) and the USA (2%)
(Textile Exchange, 2018). With the exception of the USA, there are murky connections
between growers, accumulators, processors and traders. A genuine ‘organic’ standard is not
clear. Figure 7 compares varying standards highlighting that without certification many claims
of ‘organic’ are unvalidated. Certifying body Textile Exchange are constantly updating their
database of companies they have blacklisted for unsubstantiated claims of organic cotton.
Figure 7: Comparison of the Global Organic Textile Standard and Organic Content
Standard certification standards. Source: Textile Exchange, 2020
26Greenwashing is rife in this space. One promotion claims that: “Organic farmers use soil
management techniques such as crop rotation, green manures and cover crops to naturally
boost the soil. Cover crops not only improve soil fertility but they can also reduce soil erosion,
as their roots hold soils in place. They can also mitigate the effects of drought in the long-term
by preventing evaporation of moisture and improving soil structure, thereby improving their
ability to absorb more water”. While this is commendable, it is not exclusive to organic
farming. One could argue that many conventional Australian farmers are dedicated to these
practices but are constrained by water and embrace GMO technology, negating the
opportunity to align with a customer’s perceived desires.
Australian cotton is does not need to compete with organic labelling. Global Organic Textile
Standard certified organic cotton represents 1% of the global market (Textile Exchange, 2020),
so may provide a small margin to the industry in developing nations, and the genuine article
serves a wealthy and discerning customer. A niche product, garnering added value can
contribute to breaking the poverty cycle, as occurring for women farmers in India through
organic cotton production (Figure 8).
Figure 8: Cycle of poverty for women cotton farmers in India. Source: Textile Exchange
2020
273.1.3 Better Cotton Initiative (BCI)
One of the simplest steps to improve sustainability credentials is the adoption of minimum
sourcing targets or through certification. Owing to inconsistencies between production
regions and their local practices, a voluntary standard that exceeds simple legal requirements
is one method of providing assurance. These straightforward systems have been widely
embraced by the textile industry, growing from 1% market share in 2008, and assumed to
certify 30% of the world’s cotton by 2020 (BCI, 2020). Grown in conformity to a standard, this
offers brands protection from scandals, but is not necessarily seeking premium status, lifting
‘baseline’ producers towards achievable targets.
BCI operates on a mass balance system (Figure 9). It aims to demonstrate that multiple
stakeholders working together can shift a global system so sustainability becomes the
mainstream. BCI has been endorsed by some of the world’s largest consumers of raw cotton
such as IKEA (1%) and is currently 19% of global cotton (BCI, 2020). Better Cotton Claim Units
are applied at the gin but are not physically connected with the fibre. These credits can be
bought and sold similarly to any other commodity. This is a transitional model as technology
and traceability increase. As the cotton and the credits are separate, it is more affordable than
tangible tracking.
Figure 9: Better Cotton Initiative Summary Source: BCI website 2020
28Affordability is key to scaling this system. It seems a win-win: companies can satisfy social
demands, consumer preferences, and brand protection, but are not sacrificing profits. This
strategy has its foibles and detractors, but it is certainly having an impact on volume.
Modules on employee management, pesticide and fertiliser use, soil health, water efficiency,
energy, work-place health and safety and demonstration of continuous improvement give a
comprehensive assessment of a business’s impact. For many cotton producing nations, BCI
accreditation indicates a large variance from standard growing practice, basically requiring it
for market access. Brazil is the biggest supplier of BCI cotton. As this country is familiar with
international scrutiny regarding the Amazon Rainforest they have proactively invested in
certification. As Brazil seeks to shake its history of extractive industries and be seen as
ecologically responsible, a recognised endorsement is vital to improving their social licence
and trading options. Conversely, Australian agriculture exceeds minimum standards on many
fronts, the primary motivation for growers to enrol in BCI is a bale premium. Unfortunately,
as the production of BCI Cotton outstrips demand, this is unlikely to be realised (Figure 10).
Figure 10: Supply of certified BCI cotton forecast to outstrip demand making attracting
price premiums difficult. Source: BCI, 2017
Aimed at the lowest common denominator, BCI is a great tool to improve outcomes in
developing nations. However, aligning Australian cotton with BCI equates our highly regarded
and sustainable fibre with producers who are simply seeking market access.
Presently, financial incentive is the primary motivator for growers to complete certification.
This is unlikely to be realised as supply outstrips demand. Furthermore, BCI is only recognised
29by discerning customers and does not further awareness of cotton growing or genuine
sustainability in the Australian context, hence, will not improve local social licence.
The author does not recommend abandoning BCI, however, a logical step would be to
lobbying to have all Australian grown cotton included in the platform. Accreditation of the
whole industry acknowledges that regulatory standards, proven water and pesticide use,
management of natural resources and human rights standards are world leading.
3.1.4 Upland vs Egyptian long staple
‘Identity fibres’ refer to materials that are recognisable either by geography, quality or variety.
Most cotton grown in Australia are “upland” varieties and are generally not differentiated.
The typical use for Australian cotton is blending with lower quality lint; and high-quality
shirting fabric. Geographical indicators are as active in textile markets as food. Egyptian cotton
is long regarded as the gold standard of quality and marketing, however, very little of this
highly recognisable brand is actually grown in Egypt. An Egyptian Cotton mark guarantees the
product is made of 100% Gossypium barbadense variety. Also referred to as Suivin, Sea Island
or Pima, all brandings are defined as Extra Long Staple (ELS) cotton, a silky fibre longer than
34mm. This lends itself to higher thread counts, finer quality fabrics, and a significant price
premium. This perennial crop has lower yields and more specific climatic requirements,
mostly not prevalent in Australia (Cotton Seed Distributors, 2019).
Ginning facilities also dictate the growing of ELS vs Upland. The machinery used to separate
the lint from the seed is vastly different for each style. A roller gin (used for ELS) is significantly
smaller and more energy intensive; but much gentler on the lint. Nearly all ginning facilities
in Australia are saw gins, further limiting the viability of this category of cotton production
(Back, pers. comm., 2019).
3.1.5 Carbon neutral
Examples of cities, businesses and nations aiming for carbon neutrality are plentiful. When
the luxury French fashion house Kering, declared its goal to be carbon neutral across entire
supply chain, the business was honouring their ethos of ‘care, create, collaborate’. As the
parent company of brands such as the parent company of Gucci, Alexander McQueen and
30Saint Laurent, they are an industry heavyweight, leading in areas of ethical design and luxury
marketing.
Farming enterprises contribute about 20% of Australia’s total greenhouse gas (GHG) account.
QUT has developed a calculator to estimate farm-based emissions (QUT, 2020). Though this
tool is based on the best available information, it is not definitive. There is an element of
uncertainty associated with estimating GHG emissions from ecosystems and agriculture.
In 2011, Kering developed an ‘Environmental Profit and Loss’ methodology to attribute a
financial figure to environmental impacts of the brand and have proactively been linking
‘sustainability and luxury’ (Kering, 2020). Brands are strengthening their language regarding
climate change. Helen Crowley, Kering’s Head of Sustainable Sourcing and Innovation, said
“We can no longer wait to take real action. We all need to step up as businesses and account
for the greenhouse gas emissions that we generate in total”. Carbon Neutral heralds a new
standard of environmental awareness and platform for improvement. The group is aiming to
mitigate carbon by investing in renewable energy, purchasing carbon-neutral raw materials
and purchasing offsets for unavoidable emissions; equating to a US$8.4m investment.
The maintenance of soil organic carbon in terrestrial ecosystems is critical for long-term
productivity. Cotton has a great opportunity to step forward as a carbon positive crop.
Presently, farmers have access to renumeration for sequestration or abatement through
Australia’s Emissions Reduction Fund. At the risk of adding further confusion to a saturated
identity cotton market, carbon positive is a gap in the market. An additional level in myBMP
may future proof the industry.
3.1.6 Environmental profit and loss
To communicate with business leaders, Kering Group have commissioned Price Waterhouse
Coopers to devise an environmental profit and loss (EP&L) accounting methodology to
evaluate the entire value chain (Figure 11). A tool such as the EP&L frames the conversation
in a business context, causing CFOs and CEOs to pay attention, and enables a more objective
view of meeting goals and targets.
31Figure 11: EP&L metrics as according to Kering. Source: Kering, 2020
Helen Crowley claims Regenerative Agriculture (RA) is the way forward. Kering defines this as
a system of farming principles and practices that “seeks to rehabilitate and enhance the entire
ecosystem of the farm by placing a heavy premium on soil health with attention also paid to
water management, fertilizer use, and more. It is a method of farming that can improve the
resources it uses, rather than destroying or depleting them”. Kering acknowledges that fashion
is deeply tied to agriculture and we need to commune more with farmers. While these
statements are well intentioned, these statements do not demonstrate a tangible
understanding of agribusiness or farming.
3.1.7 Biodiversity
Many farms are naturally rich in biodiversity, and this is an area of environmental concern
fashion is awakening to. Farmers recognise the value in healthy eco-systems, as it is elemental
to integrated pest management, strong water ways and productive soils. The real task is to
effectively publicise this. An industry-wide approach to mapping and measuring and
communicating these areas of shelter would engender discussion and positive engagement
with environmental groups.
323.2 Minimising GHG emissions on farms
Agriculture is under pressure to minimise GHG emissions. As well as societal benefit, diesel,
electricity and fertilise are significant on-farm costs. QUT (2019) (supported by Cotton
Research and Development Corporation) have a Cotton GHG Calculator available to help
growers identify and action savings on their carbon footprint and improve profitability. The
‘low hanging fruit’ for energy saving practices include pump efficiency, transitioning from
conventional to minimal tillage systems and streamlining larger operations such as picking.
The biological release of emissions due to application of nitrogen fertiliser and soil
disturbance can also be determined using this calculator.
Manures and waste products as a source of fertiliser are becoming mainstream. The most
common barrier is location (distance between source and farm) and soil type. As more
farmers embrace manures or compost, this has become an additional income stream for
intensive animal farming. Australia is in a unique situation regarding nutrient management.
In some parts of the world, stocking densities are constrained by their capacity to manage by-
product. Having a much higher ratio of arable soils to nutrient production is a great
opportunity for Australia to become more integrated and circular in our approach to nutrient
management.
3.3 Circularity and opportunities
Also known as ‘cradle to cradle’, circularity is heralded by QUT Creative Industries Lecturer
Alice Payne, as a new era of sustainability (Figure 11). An estimated $500 billion worth of
value is lost every year due to clothing that are barely worn and rarely recycled, and if this
continues, the fashion industry will continue to use 25% of the world’s carbon budget.
Australians are among the world’s worst textiles waste culprits, throwing away 23kg of
clothes each annually (Milburn, 2020). Until now, the tsunami of unwanted clothing has been
held back by secondary markets, where clothing is resold into developing economies. These
traditional markets are collapsing under the sheer volume of unwanted clothing, rendering
them unprofitable. Globally, 87% of unwanted textiles are sent to landfill or incinerated, some
of these garments have never been sold or have only be worn once; 12% is mechanically
recycled by cutting or shredding into fibre, insulation material or rags, as this is the ‘end of
33You can also read
